National City Bank v. Carter
| Decision Date | 12 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 5072.,5072. |
| Citation | 31 F.2d 25 |
| Parties | NATIONAL CITY BANK v. CARTER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
A. L. Heiskell and T. K. Riddick, both of Memphis, Tenn. (Milton J. Anderson and A. W. Ketchum, both of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
L. H. Graves and S. O. Bates, both of Memphis, Tenn. (J. H. Shepherd and Walter Chandler, both of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before DENISON, MACK, and HICKS, Circuit Judges.
On the trial held after our decision in 14 F.(2d) 940, each party moved for a directed verdict; judgment was thereupon rendered for plaintiff.
Plaintiff was a retired Virginia planter, without business experience other than in small local matters and wholly ignorant as to stock exchange transactions. While on vacation in Hot Springs he discovered a wallet planted for that purpose by one Furay, alias Collins, head of a band of confidence men. From inspection of its contents he was led to believe that its owner was a confidential agent of Barnes Bros., a New York stock brokerage house, traveling in different cities to buy and sell through local stock exchanges according to telegraphic instructions to be sent in code and kept absolutely secret. No such firm existed.
After reclaiming the wallet, Furay won plaintiff's confidence by asserting that he had speculated on a small scale with his own money for the latter's benefit. He then proposed a major deal in the name of plaintiff but with his own funds, stating that he would use the information to be telegraphed to him the next day. Plaintiff upon promise of a one-quarter share in the contemplated $100,000 profit assented, not expecting in any eventuality to advance money, assume risk, or receive delivery of stock. Furay explained that he needed plaintiff's name in the deal because "I am forbidden to buy stock in my own name, but I can buy it in outside honest men's names, as I have found you * * * to be." Appellant vigorously denies that the italicized words were ever said, pointing to their absence from plaintiff's testimony in previous trials before the issue on which they are relevant had been raised.
The next day plaintiff was informed that the transaction upon the market had been successfully carried out, and packages supposedly containing the money won were actually produced for division, when another member of the gang burst into the room, impersonating the superintendent of the local stock exchange. He demanded return of the money on the ground that under the exchange rules purchases and sales could be made only by persons whose financial responsibility had been evidenced by the prior posting of cash with the exchange or local banks. He finally agreed to let the transaction stand if the speculators would show by posting cash that they could have made good if there had been losses. It was agreed that plaintiff should put up $20,000, later increased to $28,000, for the short period required.
Plaintiff returned to Virginia and procured two checks on his banks for $10,000 each and $10,000 more in Liberty bonds. He thereupon joined the confidence men in Memphis, to which they told him all accounts had been transferred. Meanwhile the band had sought for a bank official who would assist them in obtaining plaintiff's funds and quieting his fears; they found one in the person of Huntley, the active vice president of appellant bank. Huntley, for a percentage of the money handled, opened an account for plaintiff with the proceeds of the checks, made him a bank loan upon the security of the Liberty bonds, paid out the money knowing that plaintiff would immediately hand it over to the members of the gang, and reassured him of the honesty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sedco Intern., SA v. Cory
...Bradfute Corp., 463 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1972); Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 276 F.2d 766 (6th Cir. 1960); National City Bank v. Carter, 31 F.2d 25 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 280 U.S. 559, 50 S.Ct. 18, 74 L.Ed. 614 (1929); Marshall v. Lovell, supra; Stewart v. Wright, supra; In re......
-
Anderson v. General American Life Ins. Co.
...to the instant case from that made of it by this court in National City Bank v. Carter, 6 Cir., 14 F.2d 940, and National City Bank v. Carter, 6 Cir., 31 F.2d 25. The court was careful to observe, however, that "the question of exclusive control is one of fact upon all the evidence, and the......
-
General American Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson
...of the Kean case, supra, or from the holdings of this court in National City Bank v. Carter 6 Cir., 14 F.2d 940, and National City Bank v. Carter 6 Cir., 31 F.2d 25. Moreover, the question of exclusive control is one of fact upon all the evidence, and the amount of stock owned by Caldwell i......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Vest
...of the Kean Case, supra, or from the holdings of this court in National City Bank v. Carter 6 Cir., 14 F.2d 940, and National City Bank v. Carter 6 Cir., 31 F.2d 25." While there appears some diversity of opinion as to the true rationale or foundation of the "sole actor" doctrine, its sound......